Court No. - 27 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18284 of 2005 Petitioner :- Bishram Pandey Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (J) & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application was filed
by respondent No.8, Surendra under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on
28.07.1994 before the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.). Copy of the
application is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. The said application was
allowed by the S.D.O. and the effect of the said order was carried out in the
revenue records. Annexure-V to the writ petition is copy of the said revenue
record, which is a proforma under Section 143 of the Act and Rule 135 of the
Rules framed under the Act. The application was allowed on 02.05.1998.
Kachchi copy of the said order has been supplied by the learned counsel for
respondent No.8 and it has been stated that the said copy was not available
until filing of the counter affidavit. The said order has been passed in Case
No.9 under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Report Vs. Bhabhooti and
others. Through the said order, it has been directed that names of several
persons, i.e. Kaushal Kishore and others entered in the revenue records over
Plot No.241, area 0.085 hectares should be expunged and the land shall be
entered as Abadi Warg-6(2).
Against the said order petitioner filed revision being revision
no.90/606/263/K-1999. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur,
Division Gorakhpur dismissed the revision on 28.01.2005 hence this writ
petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 categorically states that the
application which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition was never filed by
respondent no.8. Same fact has been stated in para 21 of the counter affidavit
of respondent no.8. As respondent no.8 is denying to have filed any
application hence order passed thereupon is liable to be set aside on this
ground alone.
As petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.05.1998 and respondent no.8 is
asserting that he never filed any such application on which the said order was
passed hence without entering into the merit of the case it is directed that the
order dated 2.5.1998 alleged to have been passed in case no.9 under Section
143 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act and the revisional order shall be treated to be non
est. Let the parties get their disputes decided through proper proceedings. It is
stated that partition suit is already pending in between petitioner and
respondent no.8. Let the said suit be decided without taking into consideration
the order dated 2.5.1998 and the revisional order which have been declared to
be non est by this judgment.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
vkg